Selective Criticism Of Some Authors

Discussion in 'Bible Versions/Translations' started by Rippon, Jun 3, 2009.

  1. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    On Saturday while picking up my copy of God's Word translation which I had ordered a few weeks ago, I came across an interesting book. It's called : The Moody Handbook Of Preaching. It was published in 2008. I am sure there are many worthy chapters in the book authored by a variety of pastors/writers. But there was one chapter that I came to which I focused on. It's called: The Use And abuse Of Greek In Preaching by Gerald W. Peterman. In it he picks on the NIV a few times. Now I realize that the NIV translation has been the big boy on the English block for quite some time now. Yet its successor, the TNIV was not referenced at all in Mr. Peterman's chapter. (It was cited elsewhere in the book -- but I don't know if it was positive or negative.)

    Today's New International Version New Testament was released to the public in 2001. The O.T. and N.T. came out in 2005. Why did this author (and others I have come across) neglect the reading of the TNIV?

    Mr. Peterman said: "The NIV wrongly translates the Greek of Phileman 6 with 'be active in the faith'." If he had looked at the TNIV rendering he would have noticed an improvement : "I pray that your partnership with us in the faith may be effective in deepening your understanding of every good thing we share for the sake of Christ." The key words being -- your partnership with us in the faith.

    Why can't writers look at the improved text of the NIV in the TNIV? Why spill ink in criticizing the older version? The same holds true with respect to the NLTse. Many writers have disparaged the 1996 version for its alleged weaknesses but have not given a glance at the much improved NLTse (2004,2007). I find these practices less than honest.
     
  2. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    The TNIV has a reputation deserved or not of being the era gender nuetral Bible so many people ignore it just on reputation. I doubt that you yourself have read every translation in print. I tend to think he just made a comment on the NIV and the TNIV never crossed his mind and it had nothing to do with deception.
     
  3. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    Whatever the above means.

    Of course not. Whatever does that have to do with the OP? I have never made the claim. Sometimes your statements have nothing to do with anything.

    Well then, he is a rather unaware chap, isn't he? If he had quoted the TNIV as a big improvement over the NIV's rendering of that passage he would have earned my respect.
     
  4. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    ERA equal Rights Ammendments referencing the womens rights movement. It was made known through many pulpits and Christian publications that the TNIV was made simply to appease the ladies from NOW (national organization of women). That was the attitude that was and still is in some circles . The mere thought of changing some words from a male reference to gender nuetral drove some clergy nuts and they passed thier feelings on vocally and in print.
     
  5. Rippon

    Rippon
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2005
    Messages:
    17,410
    Likes Received:
    328
    And that was/is a bunch of hooey. That's just an example of part of the disinformation campaign against the TNIV. In other words lies were made to serve the ends of those who wished to negate the popularity of the TNIV.And those lies were/are rather effective.



    This is so much bunk. Any disinterested person after some investigation into a lot of the actual New Testament text of today's New International Version, would come to the conclusion that most of the claims made against it were/are bogus. Any "clergy" driven nuts were already nuts to begin with.
     
  6. Plain Old Bill

    Plain Old Bill
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2003
    Messages:
    3,657
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well I don't have a difficult time agreeing with you concerning the TNIV I'm just accounting for some of the reasons it is less popular than it could be. It could also be promoted much better than it is. Some other things that would help it would be some study editions.
     
  7. gb93433

    gb93433
    Expand Collapse
    Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2003
    Messages:
    15,496
    Likes Received:
    6
    I wonder what those clergy who are "nuts" would think if the words in Hebrew which had a feminine ending were translated as feminine instead of how we use them in English as masculine? That would make for some interesting "literal" talk. Some folks cannot accept the truth. Lies are always easier to sell to the ignorant.
     

Share This Page

Loading...